MAVERICK AT THE MOVIES 
Southern Minnesota's local source for film music, reviews, and new release information

Home

The Host

Play Lists

Reviews

Features

Blog

Screenings

Links

Listen

Feedback

Reviews

Here are the show's weekly reviews of theatrical releases and DVD picks. The films are listed alphabetically by title. Titles beginning with numerical values (i.e. 16 Blocks) are listed in the Numbers section. Foreign films are listed according to the American title under which they were marketed.  

# A B C D E F G H

I

J K L M

N

O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

K

Kicking and Screaming    
Kill Bill
    
King Arthur (2004)
    
King Kong (2005)
     
The Kingdom (2007)
      
Kingdom of Heaven
    
Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut
     
Kinsey
    
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
    
The Kite Runner
   
Knocked Up
     
Kung Fu Hustle
    
Kung Fu Panda
    

Kicking and Screaming 
Directed by: Jesse Dylan

Premise: A soccer-dad (Will Ferrell) takes over the coaching duties of his son’s team and gradually becomes corrupted by the desire to win.

What Works: The film is at its best with Mike Ditka playing himself as Ferrell’s assistant coach. Will Ferrell is again a likeable buffoon, the type of character he excels at playing. As his mild-mannered behavior gives way to a win-at-all-costs attitude, the film gets better and funnier. There is an interesting relationship between Ferrell and his very competitive father (Robert Duvall), who coaches an opposing team.

What Doesn’t: The relationship between father and son does not really go anywhere and keeps recycling the same scene over and over again. The film is very predictable, using a formula seen in many kids-sports films from The Bad News Bears to The Mighty Ducks but the kids in this film are not nearly as colorful or as interesting. There are opportunities for this story to go off in new directions but the film never uses them.

Bottom Line: Kicking and Screaming is a likeable film but its not a great film. Fans of Ferrell’s shtick and the Chicago Bears will enjoy it.

BACK TO THE TOP

Kill Bill
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino

Premise: A former assassin (Uma Thurman) awakens from a coma and begins a violent rampage as she exacts revenge on those who betrayed her. The film is divided into two volumes.

What Works: Kill Bill combines colorful characters, nonlinear storytelling, and cinematic allusions typical of Tarantino’s other work, but this film jettison's extraneous dialogue in favor of more cinematic modes of storytelling. The result is an arrow point of a film that, despite totaling more than three and a half hours in length, manages to hold the audience's rapt attention. The first volume is heavy on movement and action but light on story and character development. It establishes the tone and the non-linear arrangement of its sequences solves what would otherwise be an unbalanced narrative.  The second volume focuses less on action and more on character development.  Taken as a whole the film has a completeness and a symmetry that makes it a narrative marvel.

What Doesn’t: The first volume of Kill Bill is so light on character development and takes its violence, however stylized, to such a level that some audience members might be too sickened. 

DVD extras: The DVDs are packaged separately. Each has a short featurette on the making of the film, and trailers. Volume 1 includes musical performances by The 5, 6,7, and 8s. Volume 2 includes a deleted scene and footage from the premiere.

Bottom Line: Kill Bill is Tarantino's masterwork, at least so far. The film features many of his best inclinations (snappy dialogue, sympathetic villains, narrative complexity) and minimizes his worst ones (long rambling dialogue sequences, lack of substance).

BACK TO THE TOP

King Arthur (2004)
Directed by: Antoine Fuqua

Premise: Purports to be the true story that the legend of King Arthur was based upon. Arthur is the leader of a group of knights who are indentured servants to the Holy Roman Empire. Before they can be released, the knights must complete one last mission. 

What Works: There have been a lot of these kinds of sword and shield epics with big battle scenes. This one has better choreography than most. King Arthur takes on the issues of war and what kinds of motives the average soldier can take solace in. There are a number of debates between Arthur and Lancelot about what their bloodshed has meant and this gives the film a little more depth.

What Doesn’t: Unfortunately, the debates about the purposes of fighting don’t really go anywhere. In the end it is claimed that the English are united in a common struggle. What that struggle is for is never quite clear. Although the acting is pretty good, a lot of the characters are flat and are not given much to do between fights.

Bottom Line: Fans of Braveheart and other medieval war films will want to check it out. The filmmakers noticeably stay away from gore to achieve a PG-13 rating and this reveals that perhaps some other epics have relied on extreme gore over actual substance.

BACK TO THE TOP

King Kong (2005)
Directed by: Peter Jackson

Premise: A remake of the 1933 film. A film crew travels to an unknown island and discovers a giant ape.

What Works: As a loud, fun, rollercoaster of a film, this version of King Kong is among the greats. What the filmmakers have constructed is a tribute to a classic film. They have maintained the adventure, the romance, and the themes of the original and given them a huge booster shot. For instance, the film repeats some of the dialogue and the music from the 1933 film but places or rephrases it in new ways and in new places. This remake is able to improve on some of the original film’s weaker points, namely the way the original story lags before the characters get to the island. In this version, the travel is used to complicate some of the character relationships and give them some development before the characters are put in peril. The strongest human performance is by Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow but the star of the show is the computer-generated Kong (Andy Serkis). In the ongoing argument about the artistic integrity of computer-generated characters in film, King Kong makes a great case in CGI’s defense.

What Doesn’t: The film gets a little too sentimental at moments, using one too many dewy-eyed gazes between Kong and Ann. This is especially true in a completely out of place ice sequence in New York. For the level of production, some of the CGI work involving the dinosaurs and the water around the island looks really poor.

Bottom Line: King Kong is a great love story with some really great action set pieces. For all its flaws, the film delivers on both the romance and the action and is a worthy remake of the original film.

BACK TO THE TOP

The Kingdom (2007)

Directed by: Peter Berg

Premise: After an American housing facility in Saudi Arabia is bombed, an FBI response team works with Saudi officials to try and find those responsible.

What Works: The Kingdom combines elements of multiple genres, including espionage and political thrillers, police procedurals, and the Western to create a hybrid that presents familiar scenarios in ways that are fresh and new. The film moves along briskly and the final act of the story is shot and edited extraordinarily well. The style of the film shows influence of producer Michael Mann, director of Heat and Collateral, but director Berg puts his own stamp on the material, conveying complicated expository information in effective and concise ways. The performances are also very well done, especially Jamie Foxx as team leader Ronald Fleury and Chris Cooper as explosives expert Grant Sykes, but the true standout actor of the film is Ashraf Barhom as Saudi Colonel Faris Al Ghazi. Although the civilian deaths cement the gravity of the story early in the film, the ongoing relationship between Fleury and Al Ghazi sustains the emotional center and gives the film more substance, allowing the Westerner and Middle Easterner to overcome their differences and combine talents to combat terror. This relationship is a microcosm of Western—Mid-East relations and The Kingdom is able to delve into the subject, addressing some of the complicated issues on the Saudi side and the film admirably attempts to give more texture to the Muslim characters and their culture than is usually afforded to them in a Hollywood film, especially one dealing with terrorism.  

What Doesn’t: For most of the film, The Kingdom only scratches the surface of the issues of terrorism and the consequences of retaliation. The film strives for the kind of complexity featured in Spielberg's Munich, but the story is so limited in its scope that it is unable to accomplish that.

Bottom Line: The Kingdom is an exceptional film. Its action scenes are on par with the best action elements of the genre and the substance of the film gives the audiences more to chew on than other films of its kind. Although it cannot reach the heights of Munich, it certainly comes close and at least equals films like Clear and Present Danger.

BACK TO THE TOP

Kingdom of Heaven 
Directed by: Ridley Scott

Premise: Orlando Bloom plays a Christian knight charged with protecting Jerusalem from Muslim invaders during the Crusades. 

What Works: This is a very topical film, full of ideas about religion and war. The film is not anti-Christian or anti-Muslim but shows how the hierarchy of religion, mixed with government, may be used to perpetuate and justify war. Ridley Scott uses many of the same cinematic techniques he employed in Gladiator but in comparison to the sword and sandal films in the past year, Kingdom of Heaven shows a lot more craft in its structure, editing, and cinematography. There is a wonderful performance of Ghassan Massoud as Saladin. In a small amount of screen time he brings a dignity and and a complexity to the role that flies in the face of most portrayals of Middle Eastern characters. 

What Doesn’t: Kingdom of Heaven's character development is rather thin, especially in the supporting cast. The film may be confusing to those who are not familiar with the history and politics of the Crusades, although the drama within the film is laid out well enough.

Bottom Line: While it is not as good as Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven is above average as an action film and as an epic. The action sequences are satisfying and the romance is there, but the film goes beyond the conventions of its genre with its intellectual ideas.

 BACK TO THE TOP

Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut
Directed by: Ridley Scott

Premise: This is a new cut of Ridley Scott’s 2005 film. Balien (Orlando Bloom) is a disillusioned Christian knight charged with protecting Jerusalem from Muslim invaders during the Crusades of the 12th century. This version adds fifty minutes of footage to the film.

What Works: The original cut of Kingdom of Heaven was a solid film but lacked a lot of character development and in moments it took great leaps forward in the storytelling that were jarring. This new version mends all the major problems, such as Balien’s growth as a leader and a soldier, and provides a wealth of texture to the film. The added sequences provide the film with some much deeper moments both for the political story and for the stories of the individual characters. The characterizations are much richer in this version, especially for Princess Sibylla (Eva Green), who is now able to rise above her stereotypical role and become a fuller character. Added to Kingdom of Heaven is an entire subplot involving the son of Sibylla and his brief reign on the throne of Jerusalem after the death of King Baldwin (Edward Norton). David Thewlis’ performance is also given a reprieve in this version, and he comes off not merely as a Yoda-like mentor but as the conscience of film and he is given room to advance much more complex ideas. One of the biggest faults of the theatrical cut was the love story between Sibylla and Balien and Balien’s inexplicable refusal to kill Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) in order to marry Sibylla. The added footage makes all of this much more coherent, and it is clear what kind of film Scott was trying to make: this is a film about integrity and courage and it sets these values against the political backstabbing, corruption, and religious conflict of the Crusades to link these ideas to our contemporary age.

What Doesn’t: The only new addition to Kingdom of Heaven that feels out of place is an extra confrontation between Balien and Guy. It’s a great fight but coming on the heels of the thirty-minute siege on Jerusalem and the peaceful resolution of that conflict, the scene feels tagged on, but it does resolve the Balien-Guy storyline.

DVD extras: The film is spread across two discs with three commentary tracks and an engineers guide to the war machines of the time period. Two discs of extras include trailers, poster art, storyboards, The Path to Redemption documentary on the making of the film, and additional featurettes. These documents catalogue the making of the epic from its initial conception with director Scott and screenwriter William Monahan through the production, to the editing and re-editing by Dody Dorn. The extras deal very thoroughly with the process of adapting history to the screen and are surprisingly candid about the shortcomings of the compromised theatrical cut.

Bottom Line: The original cut of Kingdom of Heaven was a slightly above average sword and shield epic. This version elevates the picture above anything recent in the genre, even Braveheart and Gladiator, and sets it alongside such greats as Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur. In some ways, Kingdom of Heaven exceeds those films, and stands as only as one of the great Hollywood epics, but as one of the greatest Hollywood films ever made.

 BACK TO THE TOP

Kinsey 
Directed by: Bill Condon

Premise: A biopic of biologist Alfred Kinsey (Liam Neeson) who did pioneering research in human sexuality.

What Works: The film conveys Kinsey’s struggles both personally and professionally. Liam Neeson gives a very strong performance in a very complex role, and complements the film’s script, which interweaves Kinsey’s personal and professional life. Laura Linney also gives a very strong performance as Kinsey’s wife. There are some harrowing moments in the beginning of their marriage and the two actors really shine in these scenes. The picture deals with mature subject matter but treats it with respect and this makes the film’s content and Kinsey’s arguments much more respectable and interesting.

What Doesn’t: While giving airtime to Kinsey’s arguments about sexuality and society, the film runs the risk of becoming too didactic and in the middle it loses some of the narrative strength. It recovers most of this in the third act, although the resolution is somewhat unclear.

DVD extras: Commentary track, featurettes, deleted scenes, and a gag real.

Bottom Line: Kinsey is an important film that is likely to provoke the viewer with ideas about sexuality and the human animal. While it runs the risk of becoming too expository, the film’s subject matter demands this kind of presentation.

BACK TO THE TOP

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
Directed by: Shane Black

Premise: Robert Downey Jr. plays a burglar-turned actor who is paired with a struggling actress (Michelle Monaghan) and a private detective (Val Kilmer) after he gets involved in a murder mystery. 

What Works: This is familiar territory for writer and director Shane Black, whose filmography also includes the original Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout, and The Long Kiss Goodnight. This film allows him to push the characters, the storytelling, and the action genre in bold new directions as he plays with the form. The film takes a lot of risks, using a lot of voice over, jumping back and forth on the timeline, and crossing the action and hardboiled crime drama. Kiss Kiss pays homage to crime dramas but pushes out into new areas with humor and with characters who are frail and authentic, if a bit over the top.

What Doesn’t: The film is bold at jerking its audience from place to place and for some viewers it is going to be too much.

DVD extras: Commentary track and a gag real.

Bottom Line: Although metatextual references have been hip in the past few years, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang does a standout job of taking the right elements of these genres to create a post-modern action comedy. It is a film that did not get much attention in theaters but is worth a look for fans of any of these kinds of films.

BACK TO THE TOP

The Kite Runner

Directed by: Marc Forster 

Premise: Amir (Khalid Abdalla), an author living in America, recalls his childhood growing up in Afghanistan and his relationship to childhood friend Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada). As an adult, Amir returns to Taliban controlled Afghanistan to aid Hassan's son (Ali Dinesh). 

What Works: The Kite Runner is a great example of cinematic storytelling. The structure of the story is complex but it manages to maneuver around the timeline with complete coherence and use the juxtaposition of the past and the present to make the connections between plot points even stronger than if the story was told in a linear fashion. The film provides insight into the saga of Afghani people and it includes the vital component that Charlie Wilson’s War missed, the contrast in the country's culture before and after the Soviet invasion. The Kite Runner has the distinction of being a film about the Afghani people, as it gives the culture a chance to speak for itself rather than be sifted through a Western lens, but it is also distinctly an American story, as an immigrant comes to terms with his new dual identity. This is nicely done in Amir's relationship with Soraya (Atossa Leoni), another Middle Eastern immigrant who Amir eventually marries. The process of their courtship is sweet and walks the line between West and Middle East. There is a tradition for this kind of immigrant narrative in American storytelling and The Kite Runner, like its main characters, is a hybrid that retains the traditions and dignity of the Afghan culture while embracing Western sensibilities. 

What Doesn't: Amir's harsh treatment of Hassan is difficult to understand at first and it threatens to make Amir so unsympathetic that the character might never recover in the eyes of the audience. Also, those who do not know anything about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan might be lost. 

Bottom Line: The Kite Runner is a film that represents a cultural dialogue between the West and the Middle East and the story provides a chance for redemption, reconciliation, and new beginnings.

BACK TO THE TOP

Knocked Up

Directed by: Judd Apatow

Premise: After a one-night stand between Ben, a dope smoking loafer (Seth Rogan), and Alison, a career woman on her way up (Katherine Heigl), results in a pregnancy, the two attempt to reconcile their lifestyles and come to terms with impending parenthood.

What Works: Knocked Up is very funny and a step up from Apatow’s last film, The 40 Year Old Virgin. Like that film, Knocked Up is consistently funny and mixes dirty humor with very sweet, good-hearted intentions. In all areas, Knocked Up succeeds The 40 Year Old Virgin and it is a much more mature and much more enjoyable to watch. It demonstrates command of a basic rule of comedy writing that is often forgotten, that the most successful comedies have strong and coherent dramatic centers. Knocked Up has some exceptional character writing and lets its actors run with the material, allowing them to laugh and to cry, and that variety of emotion sells the movie. Both lead actors are very good and give performances that are appealing and engaging. The relationship between Ben and Alison has a lot of reality to it, especially as they go ahead with their relationship after discovering the pregnancy. Likewise, the relationship between Alison’s sister and brother in law (Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd) is also conveyed very convincingly and the interrelationship between the two couples allows for a lot of complications in the drama and new opportunities for humor. Along the way, the characters confront a lot of the issues involved in pregnancy, contemporary romance, and burgeoning adulthood and Knocked Up actually has something to say about these subjects, allowing them to play out in the drama.

What Doesn’t: Harold Ramis appears in what amounts to a cameo as Ben’s father. He is great in the role and the only disappointment in the film is that there was not more interaction between the two characters. Also, the film is not as laugh out loud funny as some might expect from the creator of The 40 Year Old Virgin, but that is because this film relies less on gags and more on situational and dialogue humor.

Bottom Line: Knocked Up is a very good film. Like the original American Pie, the picture is able to take on the subject of sexuality in contemporary life and really do something with it while having a few laughs along the way. 

BACK TO THE TOP

Kung Fu Hustle 
Directed by: Stephen Chow

Premise: In 1940s China, the Axe Gang tries to take over a small housing development defended by a group of superhuman kung fu masters.

What Works: The film is a lot of fun. It is a mix between the western, gangster films, traditional kung fu films, and Roadrunner cartoons. The combination actually works very well because it allows the filmmakers to present the audience with something they have not seen before, or at least have not seen in this way. The film’s familiar storyline is complemented by off the wall characters and a lot of over the top humor that is genuinely funny and not cynical.

What Doesn’t: Although it is fun, Kung Fu Hustle is not going to win any awards for its story. The narrative is a mix of kung fu action with familiar genre staples. The combination works well enough, but the film could have been so much more if it had a meaningful story.

Bottom Line: Kung Fu Hustle is a film for fans of adult cartoons and martial arts films. It is silly but makes for good fun.

 BACK TO THE TOP

Kung Fu Panda

Directed by: Mark Osborne and John Stevenson

Premise: An animated film in which a cherubic Panda (voiced by Jack Black) is named the new apprentice to the local kung fu master (voiced by Dustin Hoffman). When the master’s arch nemesis returns, the Panda is the only hope of the local townspeople.

What Works: Kung Fu Panda is a terrific piece of animation. The quality of the animation is as high as anything in Toy Story or Ratatouille, especially in capturing the subtleties of the characters. As a martial arts film, Kung Fu Panda uses animation and traditional martial arts visuals effectively, combining quick edits and slow motion cinematography with physical comedy. This is done especially well in a dumpling fight during Po’s training that is a winning combination of The Matrix and The Three Stooges. The story of Kung Fu Panda distinguishes itself through some superior character writing, especially for Dustin Hoffman as Master Shifu and Ian McShane as villain Tai Lung. In the little bit of screen time given to McShane’s character, the story is able to give the film necessary gravitas to carry it through to the end. Jack Black uses his lovable loser persona in the role of Po the Panda, focusing his dry, awkward shtick through a family-friendly lens. The physical comedy and Black’s voice over work combines with some very subtle but effective animation, and the result is one of Black’s best performances since School of Rock.

What Doesn’t: Like a lot of animated films, the story has a strict adherence to formula. Despite some interesting characters, a lot of their relationships and story functions are fairly stock genre conventions.

Bottom Line: Kung Fu Panda is an enjoyable piece of animation with some great character touches. It does not do much that is new, but what it does do, it accomplishes very well.

 BACK TO THE TOP